Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: nasal abbreviations + thatei / ei before indirect speech

Expand Messages
  • llama_nom
    ... Hails Konrad, I made at least 3 daft mistakes in that message, which I´d better explain. (1) I typed indirect in the subject line when I meant
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 12, 2006
      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > If Gothic did not really use ei in indirect speech, as used by
      > Wulfila, then what did it use?


      Hails Konrad,

      I made at least 3 daft mistakes in that message, which I´d better
      explain. (1) I typed "indirect" in the subject line when I
      meant "direct", (2) I carelessly mistook a Greek 1st person plural
      ending for the third person plural (thus complelely failing to
      appreciate the point of Richard's original message!), and (3) I
      somehow got the idea that W. Streitberg was talking about choice of
      tense in subordinate clauses, whereas the paragraph I quoted
      concerned choice of person. Ack. Obviously not my day.


      > Sure, I grant that Wulfila simply
      > translated the words of a greek text, but at the same it seems
      > unlikely that he would have developed a usage entirely foreign to
      > native gothic speakers, who were, after all, his audience. What
      > strikes me most here, in the explanation above, is that it
      suggests no
      > alternative usage, presumably more native to Gothic. On the other
      > hand, if the use of ei was native to gothic in this function, one
      > imagines that Wulfila's audience would have no problems
      understanding
      > him, even if his translations were thought oddly worded and
      foreign to
      > some extent in syntax, word-usage, etc. He was, after all,
      translating
      > concepts and culture entirely foreign to Goths and Gothic. Thus,
      while
      > I certainly suspect that Wulfila stretched the meanings of words,
      and
      > was perhaps somewhat novel syntactically, I do not imagine that he
      > developed new usage in indirect speach without any precedent. Am I
      > alone in this supposition?



      Not at all. In fact it's in these small words and really basic
      components of the language that you can see most independence from
      Greek usage, e.g. 'iþ' regularly comes first in the clause, while
      Greek DE comes second. Looked at as a whole, all the main
      constituents of the sentence may well match the Greek, but on
      virtually every line of the Gothic bible Greek articles are left
      untranslated, presumably because sa, so, þata was just too emphatic
      to use so ubiquitously; sometimes prepositions are inserted,
      occasionally pronouns, often reflexives; and of course my favourite,
      the enclitic -uh, often has no equivalent at all. Conversations are
      another great place to look for subtle differences. The all purpose
      Greek particle DE is replaced by a range of Gothic conjunctions, not
      at random, but according to their own various functions for which
      the Greek offered no model. Relatives show curious patterns of case
      attraction which often contrast with Greek usage. In fact choice of
      case generally, with verbs and prepositions, follows rules quite
      independent of Greek--only in some more abstract or metaphorical or
      rhetorical uses, where native rules offer no guide, is Greek in
      charge. Likewise with the choice of prepositions themselves.

      That said, given the level of immitation that we do find, any exact
      match between Gothic and Greek has to be suspect, unless it´s
      something common to Indo-European languages generally and Germanic
      specifically. Relatives before indirect speech being a case in
      point! But I can well imagine that these instances of a relative
      before DIRECT speech could be due to immitation if they are only
      found at places where the Greek has the same phrasing: They said
      that "we never saw the like". It would be interesting to see these
      Norse equivalents though. Another possibility is that Gothic had
      such usages in some contexts, but that the normal range of contexts
      in which they would appear has been extended in an attempt to match
      the Greek. This is what Streitberg suggests may be the case with
      the accusative and infinitive construction, for example, which is
      common in Old Norse, but even more widely used in Koine Greek.

      Llama Nom
    • akoddsson
      Hails Llama! ... explain. (1) I typed indirect in the subject line when I meant direct , (2) I carelessly mistook a Greek 1st person plural ending for the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 13, 2006
        Hails Llama!

        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@o...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@y...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > If Gothic did not really use ei in indirect speech, as used by
        > > Wulfila, then what did it use?
        >
        >
        > Hails Konrad,
        >
        > I made at least 3 daft mistakes in that message, which I´d better
        explain. (1) I typed "indirect" in the subject line when I
        meant "direct", (2) I carelessly mistook a Greek 1st person plural
        ending for the third person plural (thus complelely failing to
        appreciate the point of Richard's original message!), and (3) I
        somehow got the idea that W. Streitberg was talking about choice of
        tense in subordinate clauses, whereas the paragraph I quoted
        concerned choice of person. Ack. Obviously not my day.

        ;) I make so many mistakes english, quotations, and whatnot, and
        fail to mention important points and arguments, when I post online,
        that I just about kick myself when I read what I wrote. My only
        consolation is that we all do this, I think. No problem, though. We
        all enjoy learning more and working on germanic together, like
        brothers together on a ship which we are all learning how to sail.

        > > Sure, I grant that Wulfila simply translated the words of a
        greek text, but at the same it seems unlikely that he would have
        developed a usage entirely foreign to native gothic speakers, who
        were, after all, his audience. What strikes me most here, in the
        explanation above, is that it suggests no alternative usage,
        presumably more native to Gothic. On the other hand, if the use of
        ei was native to gothic in this function, one imagines that
        Wulfila's audience would have no problems understanding him, even if
        his translations were thought oddly worded and foreign to
        some extent in syntax, word-usage, etc. He was, after all,
        translating concepts and culture entirely foreign to Goths and
        Gothic. Thus, while I certainly suspect that Wulfila stretched the
        meanings of words, and was perhaps somewhat novel syntactically, I
        do not imagine that he developed new usage in indirect speach
        without any precedent. Am I alone in this supposition?

        > Not at all. In fact it's in these small words and really basic
        components of the language that you can see most independence from
        Greek usage, e.g. 'iþ' regularly comes first in the clause, while
        Greek DE comes second. Looked at as a whole, all the main
        constituents of the sentence may well match the Greek, but on
        virtually every line of the Gothic bible Greek articles are left
        untranslated, presumably because sa, so, þata was just too emphatic
        to use so ubiquitously; sometimes prepositions are inserted,
        occasionally pronouns, often reflexives; and of course my favourite,
        the enclitic -uh, often has no equivalent at all. Conversations are
        another great place to look for subtle differences. The all purpose
        Greek particle DE is replaced by a range of Gothic conjunctions, not
        at random, but according to their own various functions for which
        the Greek offered no model. Relatives show curious patterns of case
        attraction which often contrast with Greek usage. In fact choice of
        case generally, with verbs and prepositions, follows rules quite
        independent of Greek--only in some more abstract or metaphorical or
        rhetorical uses, where native rules offer no guide, is Greek in
        charge. Likewise with the choice of prepositions themselves.

        Well said.

        > That said, given the level of immitation that we do find, any
        exact match between Gothic and Greek has to be suspect, unless it´s
        something common to Indo-European languages generally and Germanic
        specifically. Relatives before indirect speech being a case in
        point! But I can well imagine that these instances of a relative
        before DIRECT speech could be due to immitation if they are only
        found at places where the Greek has the same phrasing: They said
        that "we never saw the like". It would be interesting to see these
        Norse equivalents though. Another possibility is that Gothic had
        such usages in some contexts, but that the normal range of contexts
        in which they would appear has been extended in an attempt to match
        the Greek. This is what Streitberg suggests may be the case with
        the accusative and infinitive construction, for example, which is
        common in Old Norse, but even more widely used in Koine Greek.

        Then we agree on this, I think.

        Regards,
        Konrad

        > Llama Nom
        >
      • llama_nom
        After all that discussion, and in spite of what we concluded at the time, Streitberg was quite right to print: qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni gasehvun (Mk 2:12)
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 10, 2006
          After all that discussion, and in spite of what we concluded at the
          time, Streitberg was quite right to print:

          qiþandans þatei aiw swa ni gasehvun (Mk 2:12)

          ...as opposed to 'gasehvum'. On closer inspection, I see that there
          are in fact different suspension marks used for 'm' and 'n' in the
          Codex Argenteus. The 'm' is distinguished from 'n' by a very slight
          downward hook in the middle of the line. For the 'm' sign, see e.g.
          imma Mk 2:18, imma Mk 6:14, þammei Mk 6:16, þaim Mk 6:21 [
          http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/311mc6f.html
          ]--see the end of the 6th line down.

          And for the 'n' sign: unhulþons Mk 3:15, standan Mk 3:24,
          saihvandans Mk 4:12, marein Mk 4:39, afhvapnodedun Mk 5:13, iddjedun
          Mk 5:24, jah qeþun Mk 5:31, ufkunþa Mk 5:29, handugeino Mk 6:2--and
          Mk 2:12 [
          http://www.ub.uu.se/arv/codex/faksimiledition/jpg_files/284mc2f.html
          ]--end of line 10.

          There's no doubt that 'n' is intended at Mk 2:12, although the signs
          are similar, and it's easy to imagine that confusion would be
          possible when reading faded letters or a degraded/damaged
          manuscript, or that the two nasal signs might get mixed up
          occasionally by accident. Maybe some such reason is behind the
          apparent divergeance from the Greek text here. Even so, it's
          probably still best to print the text as it appears in the Codex
          Argenteus, since we can't be sure that this is a mistake; and even
          if it is, the mistake might be significant--either for the study of
          Gothic syntax, or in identifying the Greek Vorlage. As ever,
          appologies for misleading everyone! The article I read didn't make
          this m/n difference clear.

          Llama Nom



          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard"
          <budelberger.richard@...> wrote:
          >
          > 20 nivôse an CCXIV (le 9 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 23h08.
          >
          > ---- Message d'origine ----
          > De : llama_nom
          > À : Gothic-L
          > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2006 21:58
          > Objet : [gothic-l] nasal abbreviations + þatei / ei before
          indirect speech
          >
          > >> Existe-t-il une différence suffisante entre les signes
          > >> d'abréviation pour distinguer un *m* d'un *n* ?
          > >
          > > Apparently not:
          > >
          > > "The CODEX ARGENTEUS is written in an alphabet devised by
          Wulfila,
          > > though it seems quite likely that some changes have been made in
          the
          > > intervening century and a half. The Gothic alphabet has two
          styles,
          > > one (I will call it style I) using a sigma-like -sign and a nasal
          > > suspension for n only, and the other (I will call it style II)
          uses
          > > the Latin and suspension marks for both n and m (Fairbanks and
          > > Magoun). The CA is written in Style II, and it seems quite likely
          > > that this is a later development, probably in Ostrogothic Italy."
          > > [ http://www.florin.ms/aleph2.html ].
          > >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.